Press Releases

December16,2005

Today, Congressman Adam Smith (D-Tacoma) voted against H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism & Illegal Immigration Control Act. The bill claims to increase security at the international border and at ports of entry into the United States. It changes immigration law by making illegal presence in the country a criminal offense, increasing penalties for immigration-related offenses and allowing new grounds for the deportation of immigrants who commit certain crimes.

“I believe in a sound and reasonable immigration policy that strengthens our homeland security,” said Smith. “We need real immigration reform that decreases the number of illegal immigrants entering this country, punishes businesses that hire illegal immigrants and will provide greater security for our borders. This bill fails to meet that standard.

Also, the immigration reform bill before the House today is fiscally irresponsible and puts a further strain on our overburdened first responders. The bill would dramatically increase the burden on our legal system by automatically detaining all illegal immigrants and holding them indefinitely. The cost of building new facilities and the needed legal infrastructure surrounding the number of detainees is astronomical.”

Smith goes on to note, “Of even further concern to me is that an amendment was attached to the bill that expands the existing authority for state and local law enforcement personnel to apprehend, detain, remove and transport illegal immigrants in the routine course of their duties. I’m concerned that this added burden will take away from their needed duties to fight crime and keep our streets safe. They have critically important duties to attend to like protecting our communities and fighting meth and should not also be forced to assume the federal government’s responsibility for catching illegal immigrants.”

December16,2005

Today, Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and John Lewis (D-GA), along with 18 co-sponsors, introduced the High Performance Buildings (HPB) Act of 2005. The legislation is aimed at helping millions of families living in affordable housing units. The bill encourages communities to include sustainable development in their strategic housing plans and provides grants to non-profit organizations that increase sustainable development capacity in low-income communities. It also establishes an institute at the National Science Foundation to research indoor environmental quality and its effect on health and productivity, as well as to encourage the development and deployment of innovative energy-saving techniques.

"I have long been a proponent of incorporating new technologies and innovative ideas to improve the daily lives of Americans,” said Smith. “This bill provides the incentives to study the impact of sustainable development models and how these techniques can improve the quality of life for millions of American families. This bill also has the added benefit of creating more energy efficient construction which will reduce our nation’s energy dependence by encouraging innovation in building technologies."

"One of the ways to make a community more livable is to incorporate principles of sustainability into real life practice,” said Blumenauer. “Buildings are the second largest consumer of energy in the country. The sooner we implement changes to make buildings more energy inefficient, the sooner we will see the dividends of our investment."

Residential and commercial buildings account for nearly two-thirds of our nation’s electricity consumption and more than one-third of our total energy use. Sustainable architecture addresses this challenge through creating buildings that use significantly more energy-efficient materials and designs.

"As the largest consumer of energy in the world, “ said Rep. Lewis, “the United States must find viable ways to conserve the resources of this little piece of real estate we call Earth. We are not here to stay. We are simply stewards of the land, the water, and the air and all their precious bounty. As a nation and as a people, we have to find ways to live in harmony with nature, to use her resources wisely, and in ways that help preserve and conserve natural resources for generations yet unborn. This bill is one important step toward demonstrating the practical benefits of energy conservation to American citizens. Residents of sustainable housing will save money on their energy bills, and at the same time they will help extend the longevity of valuable natural commodities for the benefit of all Americans and generations yet to come."

December15,2005

Today, U.S. Representative Adam Smith (D-Tacoma) voted for H.R. 2830, the Pension Protection Act of 2005. HR 2830 is a comprehensive pension reform bill that would apply to both single- and multi-employer pension plans. The bill would increase the funding requirements for defined pension benefit plans, shorten the period of time over which funding shortfalls must be eliminated, require sponsors to disclose more information about pension funding, restrict benefit payments and benefit accruals in underfunded plans, and increase the premiums that plan sponsors pay to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC).

“I supported this legislation because we need to ensure that American workers pensions are protected,” said Smith. “Americans have worked too hard, for too long, to lose their pensions overnight. Voting for this legislation takes a step in the right direction.”

In general, plans would be required to fund 100% of their “funding target” which under current law is referred to as the plan’s “current liability.” The plan would have to repay any funding shortfalls over seven years. Under current law, a plan’s unfunded liability can be repaid over periods of up to 30 years. Additionally, this bill would raise the base annual PBGC premium from $19 to $30 per participant per year. For those plans that are 60% or less funded, benefits would be frozen and no new benefits could be earned until the company reached a funding level of at least 80%. It is Smith’s hope that the bill will help ensure greater transparency and accountability in the PCBG, inclusion of shutdown benefits for older wokers, and the overall tightening of rules so that companies will meet their financial obligations to their employees and retirees.

“Although I voted for today’s legislation, it is my hope that in the Conference Committee process, many of the concerns that I have will be addressed,” Smith continued.

Smith expressed concern that these reforms could encourage employers to terminate their pension plans and in turn, the PBGC will pick up the tab for these pensions. He noted the cases of the airline and steel industries, where pension plans that are taken over by the PBGC were bad for taxpayers as well as workers. He further stated that because the PBGC will only guarantee a capped amount per person, employees may end up receiving less money than what they were originally promised. Smith also regrets that the bill lacks language to ensure fairness between pensions for workers and executives.

“I believe that the objective of pension reform should be to strengthen retirement security for workers and retirees, while also addressing the economic pressures facing businesses today,” said Smith. “It is also my hope that the airline industry specific language in the Senate version of this bill will be included in the final Conference Report. I will continue to work with my colleagues to create policy that helps retirees keep the pensions that they have earned and allows businesses to flourish in the dynamic U.S. economy.”

December14,2005

“This conference report is the latest example that the Republican majority in Congress is out of touch with the values and needs with the majority of Americans,” said Smith. “As a matter of fact, the Republicans will have spent more on tax cuts this year than they will on all education and labor programs. This is unacceptable.”

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) program, an important tool in rehabilitating America’s troubled public schools, is cut by more than $700 million. Funding for Title I, which is the core of NCLB’s efforts to improve reading and math skills for disadvantaged children, received the smallest increase for Title I in 8 years, which means 3.1 million low-income children will be negatively affected by this cut. Also, Pell Grants, which help many lower-income students attend college, remain at $4,050 for the 4th straight year, despite the 35% increase in college costs since 2001.

“States and local school districts are also hurt by this bill,” said Smith. “The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B state grants received the smallest increase in a decade – this is a step backward in the effort to fully fund IDEA.”

Smith also said, “As a supporter of innovation and technology to help educate Americans, I was disappointed to see that the Education Technology Program was cut by $221 million or 45%,” said Smith. “When the United States is struggling to maintain its technological edge in the face of ever greater global competition, these policy decisions not only hurt American families and businesses, but also our long-term economic strength.”

With record prices for electricity and gas, Americans are going to need help heating their homes this winter and yet the Republican majority failed to increase funding for LIHEAP home heating assistance, which helps keep the heat on for low-income seniors and children.

“I will continue to work with my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, on a positive agenda that moves America forward and that helps all Americans, through commonsense, fiscally sound spending legislation. I will work to develop policy that educates more people and that provides assistance to those that need it the most,” said Smith.

December14,2005

Today, U.S. Representative Adam Smith (D-WA) made the following statement on his vote against the Patriot Act Conference Report:

“Four years ago, I joined with my colleagues in voting for the Patriot Act. The United States had just suffered a catastrophic event at the hands of terrorists and we were in an emergency situation. Almost unanimously, Congress passed the Patriot Act to ensure that our law enforcement officials had the tools they needed to combat terrorism. Over the past four years, we have been able to more fully review the Patriot Act and determine which parts need to be re-worked to preserve and fully protect, not erode, our rights and liberties.

Let me be clear that I support reauthorizing the Patriot Act, but I cannot support the deeply flawed version of the conference report that was before the House today. Had a few changes been made to this bill – some of which are outlined below – I believe that a broad, bipartisan group of representatives could have supported this important bill. However, conferees chose to ignore important recommendations from Republican and Democratic Members alike and instead crafted a bill that undermines key civil liberties. I sincerely regret that the conferees did not make a more full and rigorous effort in this regard.

The Patriot Act expanded the circumstances under which the federal government can obtain a warrant to search or otherwise gather information about people in this country. Specifically, the conference report continues to allow law enforcement officials to access information, such as library and bookstore records, from any business or individual holding them. This can be done as long as the officials assert, through a “statement of facts” that the records are “relevant” to an investigation. But there is no standard of relevancy included in the bill. Also, the conference report continues to allow federal authorities to use “national security letters” to request customer records from communications companies and financial institutions for an investigation, whether or not the investigations pertain to a foreign power or agent.

I believe that for many of the intrusive provisions in the original Patriot Act, including Sections 215 and 505, a federal agent should be required to show specific and demonstratable facts that the records or information being sought in foreign intelligence investigations are relevant to a suspected terrorist, spy or other foreign agent before he or she can obtain a court order for those records. This bill failed to meet this standard.

Another area of concern for me is under Section 206 of the Patriot Act that involves roving wiretaps. I am a strong believer that wiretaps in terrorist investigations should be held to the same standard as in a criminal wiretap where under existing federal laws, the time for interception is limited to a specific period of time where it is reasonable to assume that the target of the probe has used the instrument under wiretap surveillance. This is an important step in limiting the interception of innocent persons’ communications.

The majority party in the House also had the audacity to attach important methamphetamine legislation to the conference report. There is a vast methamphetamine epidemic raging in many states, including Washington, and attaching this legislation to the unrelated Patriot Act conference report politicizes the issue of our national security. This is politics at its worst. I support the methamphetamine legislation. I was a co-sponsor of this legislation and it was my hope that we could have passed this bi-partisan bill with a separate vote and a full debate. But I could not vote for the Patriot Act – and in doing so threaten the rights of many Americans – simply because the Republican leadership cynically added to it the methamphetamine bill.

We must provide our law enforcement officials with the necessary tools they need to combat terrorism, and I believe we can do so while also protecting our important civil rights. Sadly, this goal was not met by the conference report of the Patriot Act. There is no guarantee that the Patriot Act, in its present form, will prevent abuses of our freedoms. For this reason, among others, I chose to vote against the Conference Report and the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.”